The present invention concerns checkout stations and, more particularly, checkout stations for stores which contain items having theft-prevention indicators.
Theft in retail stores has become staggering. The impact of theft is felt not only by the retailers, but also by the consumers who bear the loss from theft either by increased prices or by store closings.
In supermarkets alone, a conservative estimate is that in 1983 theft accounted for more than one billion dollars in losses. Conventional theft detection or prevention techniques have done little to alleviate the problem. Training store personnel to detect and prevent theft is, at best, only a limited solution. Such personnel have other responsibilities, and the large number and high turnover of personnel in most stores makes it difficult to assess whether all employees are effectively spotting and preventing shoplifting.
Use of store detectives is also an inadequate solution. Store detectives are expensive, which limits the number of detectives each store can economically employ, and each store detective sees only a small part of the entire store.
The need for an effective and inexpensive technique to reduce thefts is, and has been for some time, extremely great. In many retail establishments, especially supermarkets, profits are only a small percentage of total sales; many stores' profits are less than one percent of total sales. Since such small profit margins cannot support much "set-off," the effects of theft loss in these stores is magnified.
One device which was developed to reduce supermarket theft is the SensorGate system sold by Sensormatic Electronics Corporation. In that system, soft metal strips, called labels, act as theft-prevention indicators and are attached to a store's retail items. When items with such indicators pass through a sensing gate, for example sensing gate 10 shown in FIGS. 1a and 1b, the gate detects the presence of the strip and activates an alarm. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,394,645 to Humble et al. and 4,309,697 to Weaver, both assigned to Sensormatic Electronics, Corp., provide a more complete description of a sensing gate.
FIG. 1b shows a typical placement of the gate 10 relative to a conveyor belt 15 in a checkout station of a typical supermarket. The detection area 40 in FIG. 1b is that area through which theft-prevention indicators must pass for the gate to detect them.
Other types of sensing systems which have been developed for similar purposes electromagnetically sense, for example by radio beams, detection tags on the items to be purchased.
FIG. 2 shows a checkout station 5 in a supermarket 1. The items available for purchase from the store which are determined to be "high-theft" items have theft-prevention indicators which, as described above, include soft metal labels. Sensing gates 10, similar to the gate shown in FIGS. 1a and 1b, are placed in entrance aisle 85.
When a shopper approaches a gate 10 with a shopping basket full of items from the store, that shopper places all those items on conveyor 15. A cashier using cash register system 70, which typically includes a universal product code scanner and printer, determines the total cost of items on conveyer 15 and receives payment from the shopper for those items. Gate 10 is designed to detect any "high-theft" items remaining on the shopper's person instead of on conveyor 15 and to set off an appropriate alarm when the shopper walks through that gate.
The problems with the checkout station in FIG. 2 make its use undesirable. First, since gate 10 is sensitive to the presence of metal, it would normally set off an alarm when a shopping cart or basket is pushed through it. To avoid this, sensing gate 10 has an inhibitor which disarms the gate when an object which has a very high metal content, like a shopping cart, is near the gate. In theory, after the shopper pushes his cart through gate 10 and into checkout aisle 60, the gate closes and "rearms," i.e., becomes active again, so when the shopper later passes through gate 10, the gate can determine whether the shopper has retained any items on his or her person.
In practice, however, it has been determined that when a shopper has a child or a pocketbook in the shopping cart, the shopper pulls the cart back in contact with gate 10 or at least into the gate's detection area, thereby disarming the system. Disarming the gate also occurs if the cashier, in loading bags onto a cart, moves the cart too close to gate 10. As a result, the system in FIG. 2 is "armed" only a small part of the time, thus reducing its effectiveness.
Also, the sensitivity of the system in FIG. 2 must be set very low to prevent false alarms from the excessive electrical noise, e.g., from scanner printers in register 70. False alarms not only slow the checkout operation but also generate shoppers' ill will toward the store.
Fire codes dictate that stores as large as grocery stores provide 60 inch openings at locations X and Y shown in FIG. 2. Present sensing technology cannot span this distance with a single system, and use of two systems creates fire code problems because of the need for a pedestal at the center of the 60 inch opening. As a result, systems are placed at 60 inch distances with no middle pedestal for deterrent purposes, but they seldom alarm because systems cannot function effectively at 60 inches.
These problems reduce the detection rate to an unacceptably low level, especially in view of the system's cost, which can be significant due to the number of systems needed and the structural changes which would be required for each checkout station.
The width of entrance aisle 85, through which the shopper with a shopping cart passes prior to entering checkout aisle 60, is typically only one or two inches wider than a shopping cart. The width of the supporting structure on gate 10, however, is more than two inches on each side, so gate 10 cannot be used in FIG. 2 without enlarging the entrance aisle. Such enlargement is estimated to cost at least $12,000 per store, and some selling space or the numbers of aisles may need to be reduced to accommodate the widened entrance aisles. The FIG. 2 system is thus both costly and ineffective.
To avoid widening the entrance aisles, a checkout station 5', shown in FIG. 3, uses a modified single gate 10' placed as shown in the checkout aisle 60. A shopper in entrance aisle 85 places items for purchase on belt 15 and pushes the shopping cart past gate 10' and into checkout aisle 60. The cashier takes the items from belt 15 and places them in the cart. Any other items containing a theft-prevention indicator would be detected by gate 10' if they remain on the shopper's person.
The problems with this system are still that gate 10' is very close to the scanner printer in the adjacent cash register station, thus requiring a lowering of sensitivity and, in the normal basket loading position, the basket cart could be in the gate detection area, thereby disarming the system. Furthermore, the cashier must make awkward and time consuming movements to load this cart.
Checkout station 5" in FIG. 4 eliminates some of the problems of the systems in FIGS. 2 and 3, but still has some major disadvantages. In FIG. 4, gates 10 are placed in checkout aisle 60 far enough back to avoid interference from adjacent scanner printers. A shopper entering a checkout aisle proceeds as in the systems in FIGS. 2 and 3. At the checkout station, however, when the cashier places the bags into the shopper's cart, the cart may contact and disarm the gates. Cashiers could make sure the carts are pushed all the way through the gate after loading them and before the shopper passes through the gate, but this requires that the cashiers all be trained and constantly supervised to ensure that they follow this very important procedure.
An objective of the present invention is, therefore, a checkout station to reduce the amount of theft from a store.
Another objective of the present invention is a checkout station to reduce theft which requires minimal redesign of existing checkout stations.
A further objective of the present invention is a checkout method which allows the use of self-checkout stations while reducing theft in retail establishments.
Another objective is a checkout station which does not require aisles to be moved, which eliminates congestion, and which reduces the number of theft-prevention systems required per store.
Another objective is high-speed checkout and self-checkout which requires fewer cashiers and checkout aisles and yield more sales space.
Another objective is to increase sensor sensitivity by reducing interference and to obtain a higher pick rate with fewer or no false alarms in order to have greater deterrent effect and apprehension identification potential.
Another objective is an effective theft prevention system in accord with the fire codes.
Yet another objective of the present invention is an automated checkout station.